September 06, 2018

"This is worth reading every word. It explains why liberal democrats are beyond angry and reason... About a 3 minute read.

The fury of Democrats has nothing to do with missing pages or hurried timetables. It has everything to do with being sore losers. They still cannot accept that Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Doing so would demand coming to terms with why, under President Obama, the party lost not only the presidential election but also an unprecedented number of seats in the Senate, the House, in state legislatures and governors’ mansions across the country.

It would mean admitting that President Obama was a disaster for his party.

During that agonizing descent into impotence – as Democrats lost the House in 2010, the Senate in 2012 and the White House in 2016 – not once did the party veer from policies that clearly were unpopular with voters.

Not once did Democrats loosen their grip on the progressive juggernaut that propelled them forward. They embraced environmental laws that could cripple the country’s energy base, health-care mandates that were affordable only to those subsidized by the government, restrictions on law enforcement agencies that compromised our safety on our streets, regulations on small and big businesses that made them uncompetitive. They made it harder for entrepreneurs to succeed and create jobs, and they supported immigration programs that mocked the rule of law.

Because Democrats lost their majorities in Congress, President Obama took it upon himself to create laws and to implement them. In many instances, such as with Obama’s Clean Power Plan – which would have upended our country’s energy industries – the Supreme Court slammed on the brakes, so egregious was the executive overreach. Ditto the effort to fundamentally change our immigration and labor laws.

In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 against President Obama’s use of recess appointments in the case of National Labor Relations Board vs. Noel Canning. At the time, Bob Goodlatte, a Republican representative from Virginia, said that the "9-0 decision last week was the 13th time the Supreme Court has voted 9-0 that the president has exceeded his constitutional authority."

In the 2016 Supreme Court session, the White House lost 10 cases on unanimous decisions. That was a humiliating outcome that included votes from two Obama-appointed justices.

In fact, the Supreme Court ended up being the referee-in-chief, handing down an unprecedented number of unfavorable rulings to the Obama White House. Over time, most presidents score a “win” rate of about two-thirds; for Obama it was about half

This history brings the flap over Kavanaugh into perspective. If you are pushing an unpopular agenda, legislating from the White House is the last resort. But in that scenario, the makeup of the Supreme Court becomes vitally important.

The addition of Kavanaugh will almost certainly tilt the Supreme Court to the right, although over time judges can gravitate one way or another. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, for instance, who was appointed by President Reagan, was initially a reliable conservative voter on the court but over the years become ever more liberal.

For the moment, however, Kavanaugh is solidly conservative; he is, in particular, no fan of the endless spread and intrusion of Big Government. For instance, he declared unconstitutional the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency uniquely unaccountable to Congress or the president.

Kavanaugh’s dislike of an overreaching government is catnip to conservatives, but anathema to liberals, who increasingly embrace a soft form of socialism, encouraging ever more federal control of our industries and our lives.

The Supreme Court with Kavanaugh aboard would become a serious speedbump for progressives. The next Democratic president would be less able to legislate from the White House. Instead, Democrats would have to promote their programs the old-fashioned way; they would have to win some elections.

August 24, 2018

There is a HUGE threat to pretty much all the retail sector, major parts of the health sector, and slices of a few others, such as banking and insurance. That threat is liability for data-breaches. The Street is one liberal judge away from a BAD crash, which WILL happen when one of the 77% of the Federal Courts' liberal judges decides to rule that all the phony, unconstitutional protections that companies have bribed into effect against liability for data breaches, ARE actually unconstitutional. Imagine YOU lost your identity to the hackers of Kohl's, Target or ANY company which, mostly for greed reasons, refused to use the best practices of information security. You have suffered a big loss, and if ALL your loss would be ruled compensible, you would receive somewhere in the five-figures area of compensation. Now multiply that figure by hundreds of millions, the TOTAL number of data breach victims. That adds up to doom for the entire retail sector, the health-care sector & probably the banking sector. The economy fails at that point. No one will invest in any company having had anything to do with digital records-keeping, which is pretty much everyone, isn't it?

Bottom line? The entire Bull Market Bottom Line can be removed by ONE Judge writing ONE opinion which survives thru the SCOTUS. No, I'm not going to tell you what to do if you can't invest. No, strike that, I WILL tell you, bercause that's why I blog! Buy land you can farm on. Buy guns to defend it with and buy plenty of beans and bullets for the Militia you will raise for that defense. NOW, I'm done warning you!

August 06, 2018

Re: The Democratic Party: What you have here is a POLITICAL PARTY tying to overthrow the legitimate government of the USA with acts of force and violence. I don't know what YOU call that, but I call it WAR. The USA is at WAR with the Democratic Party and their sycophants, and the USA seems unable to properly fight back. THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE USA CONSTITUTION WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE A COVER FOR REBELLION VS USA GOVERNMENT.

President Trump, the "shrug and hope it goes away" strategy has failed. For starters, the Democratic Party needs to be sued out of existance as a Racketeer-Influenced Corrupt Organization, and doing so would be a slam-dunk court case. If this fails to stop the Democrats, then bump it up: POTUS can, as the legitimate Head of State, declare in the United Nations that the USA is in a state of violent armed rebellion. POTUS uses Article 51 of the UN Charter for that (self-defense of members allowed).

If the riots, etc, persist, the President can call out the Militia, and order the Armed Forces to support it. Can you see Pantifa standing up against a Well-Regulated Militia trained and equipped to use deadly force and commanded by officers with ONE order only: Restore Order and end the leftist predations? I can't see that happening.

At some point, the POTUS will need to ask the SCOTUS to remove the jurisdiction of the lower Courts in favor of the Militia's use of the Universal Code of Military Justice during the Restoration period. Yes, that would be the dreaded "martial law", but the USA has already had Martial Law four times that I can read about in the History books: War of 1812, Civil War, World Wars One and Two, each time applied in varying degrees to keep the USA safe from it's sworn enemies.

It's WAR, Mr. Trump. It's not fun, it's not nice, but we have it now, deliberate WAR brought by the Democratic Party. Please, Mr. President, REMOVE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY UTTERLY FROM OUR POLITICS, CULTURE AND MIDST.

We are close to having to rise up in our own counter-rebellion, start a Civil War and do the job ourselves. That would be ugly, and leftists from outside of our borders would probably try to get involved on the Democrats' side. Follow my plan to take out the Democrats, Mr. President, and you have no worries about exterior forces coming into play.

July 19, 2018

I just watched the Governess Kate Brown Show on her Wildfire Conflagration Declaration (although she wasn't smart enough to use that proper term) on KPTV Ch 12. She mumbled through her part of the presentation, then presented various agency heads to give spiels.

I watched the Adjutant General of the Oregon National Guard, MAJ GEN Michael E. Stencel, with interest, since I am an Air Nasty Guard retiree and worked for the Adjutant Generals while I served in the Air Guard. Right off the bat, General Stencel goes political, profusely thanking (D) Senators Merkely and Wyden for getting the Oregon National Guard training money so expeditiously.

This caused me to issue a "HUH?", because other than their votes for the current NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act), the Senators could have had NOTHING to do with getting that money out to Oregon in a timely fashion. That would have been the responsibility of the National Guard Bureau, and ultimately, Sec/Def Mattis, who works for TRUMP, last time I checked.

Next, this caused me to go to my study and get out the latest copy of the "Oregon Sentinel", the excellent quarterly put out for Guard folks (and whoever else cares to read it) by the Oregon National Guard Public Affairs Section. This issue is Vol. 16, No. 2, and it contains TWO articles on topic. The first, on Page 2, by General Stencel himself, is titled, "Oregon Guard uniquely suited for domestic response", in which he describes his job of leading the Guard, especially in readiness for exigiencies such as a bad fire season. He doesn't mention any Democrats in this article. The article is aimed at members and leaders of the Guard, is a very rah-rah article.

The second article, on Page 7, is titled, "Chinook helicopter unit prepares for homeland missions", and refers to the B Co, 1 BN, 168th Aviation Regiment, a CH-47D outfit operating out of Pendleton, Oregon. The article mentions that this helo unit is the first to be certified in "Bambi Bucket" water drops by the US Forest Service's Aviation branch flight-check section. This is where that NDAA money went first, the money that GEN Stencel gave credit for to Merk, our Jerk, and Wyden, New York's Third Senator, for getting these dollars to us.

Speaking of Oregon's two Senators, how did they vote on the 2018 NDAA, HJR 2810? According to this:they both voted "Nay", or no! The Bill passed the Senate 89-8, by the way.

So, GEN Stencel, do you think that maybe, just maybe, you might want to issue a clarification about your profuse thanks to the Senators who ACTUALLY voted to DENY Oregon the funding to train the National Guard for firefighting service?

If you fail to issue this clarification, General, we have no choice, sir, but to label you an Obama General, and if I know Sec/Def Mattis, Obama Generals are on his Do Not Retain list.

July 17, 2018

Did Trump make mistakes with his Finland trip? Not until today. Today he tried to "walk-back" his negative comments about US Intelligence. That's a BAD mistake.

Instead of trying to kiss MSM ass, Trump should have realized that he can't EVER play their game, because the objective of that game is PRIMARILY to make him look weak and indecisive, and he DID look indecisive today.

Trump has started the process of dealing with Russia by just meeting Vladimir Putin to get to know him personally. He made the meeting notwithstanding the efforts of his Intelligence chiefs, who don't WANT his personal diplomacy involved, they want to do their smoke-and-mirrors thing, which Russia, using their tried-and-true "Maskirovka" or deception-moves, well knows how to counter.

Vladimir himself is more than equal to the entire motley crew of US Intelligence alphabet-soup agency heads. Putin, after all, for years ran the most effective spy agency on the planet. Trump well knew that history, and knew that the only way to beat Putin at that game was to use his PERSONAL diplomacy to get inside that deception and expertise, and he just did. That drew jealous howls from the Intell Chiefs. Trump needs to counter those howls with orders: STFU or be fired. He hasn't, and instead kow-towed to the bleating of the Chiefs and the MSM, who took up those cudgels for the Intelligence community.

As THIS pundit sees it, Trump can still recover: his letters demanding the Intell Chiefs' resignations need to go out tomorrow morning. While his pen is warm, he can write one for USAG Sessions, whose mismanagement of FBI oversight led to this Intell Putsch to some degree.

Kick some ass, Mr. Trump, and the day can still be yours. Stand pat on this kow-tow you just did, and you've just put the 11/6 election in jeopardy.

June 28, 2018

Okay. The Right has a string of recent Victories we can call a "trend", and with the SCOTUS vacancy, we could extend Victory well out past the present political horizon. How do we do that?

We DON'T do that by "Never-Trumping". We DON'T do that by standing on soapboxes in the park arguing Roe v. Wade over again.

We DO DO that by going on the Offense. The most boneheaded Democrat out there (use your own iconic choice) will now have to admit that President Trump is in the catbird seat, and NOTHING that the (D)-party can do will change that. So, with the MOST POWERFUL politician in the Nation now DEFINITELY being Trump, how does he (and WE) proceed to go on Offense?

First, the Right needs an actual GAME PLAN; we don't have one now. "MAGA" is a slogan, not a game plan. The game plan will have a goal of winning elections and getting stronger in Congress and also local Legislatures/City Councils, of course, but it also needs a GRAND VISION.

The Grand Vision should be to take down the Democratic Party. Take it down FOREVER.

Yes, the entire Democratic Party needs to be consigned to the dustbin of History, and that's actually NOT hard to do, but it will take time. If Trump starts today, he will just get it done by the 2024 election.

So, how DO we take out the entire Democratic Party? That part is easy: the Democrats have turned their party into a networked system of political corruption (the GOP may have tried this, but only got as far as turning the GOPe into a Stupid Party). The major Democratic Party leaders direct all this corruption, and can LEGALLY be considered "Racketeers", so the entire Party structure can be considered a "Racketeer-Influenced Corrupt Organization". Public law is involved: 18 USC 1961 and related. When the Judge in the lawsuit rules that the (D)-Party IS a RICO group, he can ban it entirely, or perhaps, from the bench, take apart the party and ban the worst parts but put all the remainder on Court Probation. Either way, that ends the Democratic Party as a National political force. What would replace it?

Replacements for the Democrats would, of course, be a Socialist Party, but maybe also a Center-Party of some sort. The catchy-names will come later.

June 23, 2018

House flipping, and why we need to ban it. (Cross-posted on my Facebook page)

The whole process of "flipping" is a tit on a boar. Useless. The idea starts with the usual scammer's dream: buy a house on the cheap because it's in terrible shape, then do cosmetic fix-up, resulting in the proverbial silk purse made from a sow's ear, sell it, get obscene profit. Do it enough times, and you get a TV program on the HGTV channel, THEN you can fly into a City, rent their basketball arena, conduct a half-day seminar on How To Flip for $500 each person, make even MORE obscene profit and fly back out of town...

Okay, take an attrractive city, put an army of house-flippers to work in it. What's the result? Housing which isn't technically improved all that much, and the improvements which ARE made are cosmetic, so in ten years, the house will be a crap-hole all over again (and it's usually in a crappy neighborhood anyway). But Wait! There's More! The flipper is going to SELL this house immediately, and make maybe 20% to 50% on their "investment dollar" doing so, then THEY leave, take that money with them, so your CITY makes almost nothing from the deal and life DOES NOT IMPROVE FOR YOU.

The result of this flip, multiplied by hundreds to thousands of them in your City, means a huge jump in the value of YOUR home, much higher taxes, and the loss of "affordability" in your housing market, which means YOU are now stuck with the crowds of yuppies who buy the flips. They come in to town, earn obscenely high salaries for doing something with bits and bytes, stay a couple of years, invariably vote Democratic, then leave.

I have a solution to all this malaise. We use the power of taxation to keep the flippers away. Here's how we do it: First, define property owners by how long they have LIVED IN their homes: over 30 years, they are "Pioneers". Over 10 years up to 30, they are "Sustainers". 5 to 10 years, they are "Locals" and under 5 years, they are "Transients". Real estate taxes are assessed on a sliding scale by these categories. Pioneers pay the smallest RATE, Transients the highest. Any tax rate higher than Local, the difference is used to LOWER the rate for Pioneers. Now for the flippers: their obscene profit is taxed at 50%, and that money is used SPECIFICALLY to lower the homeowner taxes, across the board, except for the Transient level. Secondary idea: use this tax money to fund a grant system for those who actually want to build NEW housing, because new houses are built with new materials to new codes, are more efficient, by far, than cosmetically-changed 40-70 year-old housing stock.

Make these changes, and the flipper-scammers will put your City in the rear-view mirror, and within 10 years, real estate values will start to return more towards normal, more towards what they were before the flipping-craze hit town.

Oh, by the way, those Pioneer home owners? They are amost invariably more fiscally responsible, are better neighbors than the yuppie hordes anyway.

June 20, 2018

1. The elected President can't get a thing done, the bureaucracy and Legislative and Judicial branches, most from the past President, actively oppose Trump's Administration, even to the point of calling their oppositon "The Resistance", a term of WAR.

2. The GOP, the President's Party, mostly opposes the President. The GOP "majority" in the Senate is a joke, because at least 6 Senators would rather vote with the opposition Party 90% of the time.

3. The borders are porous and open, all manner of undesireable aliens sneak in and the bureaucracy lets them stay, believing that at some point, resolve will break down and they will be offered Amnesty and become opposition-party voters.

4. The "Resistance" has the nerve to invade a restaurant and chase out a CABINET SECRETARY dining there.

5. The Military is forced to take morale-destroying trans-gender people in as combat troops.

June 16, 2018

The Democrats say that they are going to run Bernie against Trump in 2020. THAT makes sense, because he was second-best behind Crooked Hillary in '16, might even have gotten the nod to run vs Trump except for HRC's fixing several primaries.

So, what will such a 2020 race bring?

It will bring, in short, simply the most starkly different two candidates this Nation has EVER seen run against each other. Bernie Sanders is a Communist. Yes, a COMMUNIST, NOT A SOCIALIST (as even he claims). How do we know that? Easy: the changes he wants to make will have to be made at the point of a gun, or they won't get made. As I've said before on this blog, Socialism at the point of a gun IS Communism.

So, the Democratic party, should it win the election, plans to point guns at citizens and make them to things they otherwise wouldn't do (such as double the Income Tax of the middle class). If YOU were one of those Democrat leaders, wouldn't YOU want to take the citizens' guns away first? It could get real messy those guns were still out there.

I rest my case.

Moral of this little story?

If you don't want to be Communist, citizens of our USA, work to save your 2A. The 2A IS the only thing that will prevent Communism here.

June 15, 2018

Facebook “hate speech”. A game of no-rules football, to be sure. The brass hats at FB admit there are NO concrete definitions of “hate speech”, they admit that they make mistakes, and they admit to employing 7,500 censors, but this is apparently their working definition of “hate speech”1 “we define the term to mean direct and serious attacks on any protected category of people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or disease”. In that word-string, I consider “direct and serious attacks” to be the operative definition. The rest of it is ei-ei-Yo to me. The PeeCee world changes it’s definitions of “protected categories” at least as often as a paid nanny changes a baby’s diapers, maybe even more often.

This article2 from the LA Times is informative, in a “told ya so” sort of way.

What FB needs to do is use a recognized glossary. Now, that glossary is going to vary based upon the nation the writer writes from, and that can be recognized by the use of algorithms.

Specifics: I used the word “muzzies (plural of “muzzie”). Here is a slang dictionary on that word:

“Muzzie n. a nickname for a Muslim. Editorial Note: This word is often, but not always, derogatory. It is not commonly used by North Americans. (Mar 11, 2005

In my banned post, I connected the use of the above slang word with “Terrorism”, which is a legal and military term. Perhaps a better choice for me might have been “Islamic” and “Terrorism”, but then remember POTUS44, who REFUSED to use that word combination. This is NOT a "direct and serious attack" on anyone.

More specifics: I used the name “Junior Trudeau” as I was referring to the MOST RECENT Canadian Premier, but there is a recently-retired one by the same name, the father of the present one, hence the descriptive “Junior”. There is just no way that can be considered offensive, but since my banned post was a comment on a thread by a former Canadian friend and some of his supposed-friends, politically Liberal, all of them, they took my comments on the thread very hard, especially since I had just pointed out that Premier Trudeau seemed to be lying about the Tariff situation between Canada and the USA, AND I showed a joint Canada-USA GOVERNMENT chart proving that Canada’s tariffs on US trade are FAR more excessive than USA tariffs on Canada’s goods. Again, NOT a "direct and serious attack" on Premier Justin Trudeau.

Further investigation: I declare that it’s appropriate, given this INAPPROPRIATE post-banning and “Facebook Jail” term, plus the THREAT of PERMANENT banning, that several things happen, and I am retaining counsel to see if I can bring these things about:

1. Facebook MUST have a glossary of banned speech and use it, ceasing ALL “hate speech” banning until it does. Failure to take this step is a violation of Free Speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

2. Facebook needs to stop playing political favorites, left over right. This same Canadian bunch, one of whom likely finked me out, is KNOWN for lampooning President Trump, and not always politely, either. If I can’t say “Junior Trudeau”, they shouldn’t be able to refer to Trump as an orange ape, or butcher his name (it’s NOT “Drumpf”) or cast unsupported negative personal aspersions about him.

3. Legal issues: Just like the political uses of the Clinton Foundation, there’s one of those tax-exempt funds over at Mark Zuckerberg’s empire. IRS rules for these is that they are CHARITABLE FOUNDATIONS, and cannot be used for political purposes. I’m going to bet that Zuck’s is used just like the Clinton's.

UPDATE: 061518 1941 PDT: Facebook lies their ass off. I was informed that I was in FB Jail for 24 hours. After that posted on my timeline, I waited out the 24 hours (blogging, posting on MeWe & Twitter, mostly about Facebook perfidy). Well, even though I have Facebook's word for that on my timeline, they broke THAT contract as well, now let me READ my page, but I can't post anything for another 24 hours. Oh, well, these meglos are all Democrats, so I guess lying goes with their politics. We will see what tomorrow brings. Oh, yeah, Face-planters, tell your legal department I'm coming, and I'm bringing a whirlwind.

Item one on #FrightfulFriday: Facebook Jail. Yep, I dared to piss off some real, by-God, Canadian Loons, and they snitched me off for writing a lampoonish comment about their Loon-in-chief, Justin Trudeau, whom I called "Junior Trudeau" (true, that: look it up, his father is still alive!). I referred negatively to Junior's "Letting the Muzzies in" immigration policy, in those words. I'm suspended, under THREAT of permanent banning, but those ASSWIPES at Facebook won't even tell me what behavior it is I have to change to stay on the FacePlace, other than I commited "hate speech", which is so vague a charge it could NEVER be used in any court to convict ANYONE. Just like a meglo, isn't that? "I'm God and YOU can't question me." You don't suppose that reference to WASPs (White Anglo Saxon Protestants) would be Hate Speech now, do you? I was called a WASP damn near every day in high school, and that School is considered one of the most PeeCee in the country, and has been for 100 years. Here's news FacePlace can use: I have contacted a civil rights attorney in Kali, and am inquiring about sending the Zuckerbooger a Cease and Desist letter, maybe even a Tort Claim.

Item Two: I waited, and now it's here, TAAAH-DAAAH! Savage's Model 110 Tactical rifle. I'm interested in Stock Number 57007, the .308 with 24" barrel. With this barrel length, heavier bullets can be loaded with slower-burning powders which are calculated to burn completely in the longer barrel, accelerating the bullet to a better velocity, almost as good as 300 WIN Magnum. The MSRP is $784 (Streets @ $606.99 at Grab-a-gun.com), very nice for a rifle of this capability, likely a half-MOA or better. Looks like I might be able to put together the rifle, the good glass and whatever else I need, maybe even a can for around $2500. Some 168-gr match and the tables look good at out past 500 yards. Yowza. One shot, one (nevermind).

So, I'm back on here, and on Twitter (@straightcase) and on MeWe (George Schneider) or the email attached to this blog.

Ammoland.com, an online ammo sales outfit, details the D-party hacks who are taking their political machete to the 2A

I could go on, but suffice it to say that using the search term "democrats attack the second amendment", a rather narrow search, I got 546,000 hits. These four are from the first page, so rank very high to Mother Google.

Okay then, the case is made: as a political party, Democrats want to abolish the R2KBA in high numbers, only 12% off a plurality, and as for that 39%-pro-abolish crowd, only slightly more, 41% say they don't want to abolish the 2A. Now, I have some righty-friends, including those I have worked with in Law enforcement, who say "tut-tut" about this rising disdain for our basic right of self-defense (a God-given right at that). When pressed, the tut-tut folks say "it doesn't matter, the constitutional process for removing an Amendment is so strict that it will never be done". Yes, the tut-tutters are correct, it won't ever be done constitutionally. Following the strict letter and intent of our Constitution is not a required political process these days, and both major political parties constantly try to fudge the very obvious intent of constitutional powers of every sort.

The present campaign to present an Initiative, Initiative Petition 43, in Oregon is such an example of fudging. It creates a prohibited category of "assault weapon", then defines "assault weapon" to include every firearm capable of self-loading (long guns AND handguns) with the possible exception of un-modifiable internal-magazine weapons like the Garand Rifle and the Mauser C-96 "broomhandle" pistol. Their definition of "assault weapon" also takes in any weapon which can internally hold 10 or more rounds of ammo, so even your great-grandfather's pump-action .22 Gallery Gun is prohibited, as are most 22 leverguns. The Petition bans all weapons magazines holding more than 10 rounds anyway. This Petition, if approved and voted in this November, would ban well over half the firearms presently sold, and likely more than half of the firearms presently in the possession of Oregon's citizens. It makes possession of banned firearms a felony, so it would make instant felons out of over a million citizens if they didn't jump through the hoops to comply (divest themselves of the guns) on a very short time schedule after the laws became effective.

Initiative Petition 44 (illegal on it's face because of the MacDonald Decision in SCOTUS which abolished this idea), would force total lockdown of all firearms in most circumstances, and project automatic secondary and even tertiary civil liability onto firearms owners if their firearms are stolen and a police report isn't filed within 24 hours (no exceptions). There aren't criminal penalties with this one, but it's a liability lawyer's bonanza, and is illegal on it's face, since the Oregon Constitution would have to be changed to meet those new liability laws, which are illegal today. This petition attacks the R2KBA in the Chicago Style. We know about Chicago Style, don't we? Except for the term as applied to pizza crust, the very expression means illegal activity and rights denial.

These two Petitions for law-making are a continuation of the process of Oregon's Socialist Government which has recently banned person-to-person transfers of firearms (transfer through an FFL is now required) and the due-process-denying ERPO law which allows pissed-off relationship partners to disarm their former significant others.

We're not alone here in Oregon. The R2KBA is under attack everywhere. A new House Bill would bring a new, much more draconian Assault Weapons Ban to the entire nation. If the "blue wave" happens in November, this Bill will become law in the House of Representatives (spit!) Since any "blue wave" is more likely to change the party control in the Senate, the AWB could go to the President in January. Would he veto it? He says no now, but remember, he is a "deal maker". If the Asses offer him something he really wants in exchange for signing it, Trump will sign it.

Okay, the Asses are in full disarmament mode. They are in full Socialist mode, and the case can be made that they really want communism, not socialism. If the USA is forced to disarm like Australia did, we will have full-on socialism at the very least, and socialism at the point of a gun (communism definition) is more likely than not. This is not a pleasant choice to face, and at least 25% of Americans would oppose this political change. Most of that 25% would oppose it violently, and we would have a hum-dinger of a Civil War. Our choice is simple now: deny the Democrats' push for removing the 2A, or go to war.

Yes, it really is that simple. Our only choices now revolve around the threshold to start that Civil War. Do we wait until the Federal Storm Troopers begin to kick in doors to seize guns, or do we pre-emptively remove the socialism from our governance now, thereby ending the threat to our rights?

The 2A was written expressly for this purpose of removing a rights-trampling government. We are pre-authorized to fight, people. The Founders wanted us to fight in these circumstances.

This battle was never named, not even for the brooding Ben it was fought under, on the shores of a Loch with a name. There are no crosses, no monuments and no memories, the memories all died on that Field of Honor. A lesson remains, though: it’s about Honor and NOTHING else.

March 15, 2018

This would be the most severe gun-grab in the Nation, if passed. A group calling itself "Interfaith Leaders" proposes to ban all semi-automatic, or magazine-fed firearms. The article says just "Assault Rifles", but the boasting out of the Commissar Knutson's "Church" (bull. commies don't have churches) was to include all semi-autos fed by magazines.

The Initiative process, by which Commissar Knutson proposes to enact this law, is operated by the State of Oregon, so...(my Facebook Post)

My answer to the "Inter-Faith Group" seeking to ban all semi-automatic firearms in Oregon - Here is YOUR future:

1. You have ALREADY conspired to restrict or remove an enumerated Right of the Bill of Rights. You have done that just by MEETING to discuss your ill-conceived Initiative. Legally, that means that Probable Cause might already exist for your arrest on 18 USC 242, Denial of Civil Rights under Color of Authority.

2. "Under Color of Authority" will probably have to be decided in a courtroom, but this 25-year Officer of the Circuit Court of Multnomah County believes that the "Authority" of the State of Oregon is extended willingly down to reside in those following the Initiative Process. The fact that this Initiative IS a de-jure Denial of Civil Rights cannot even be challenged.

3. Prior to the Finding that the Initiative Process DEPENDS on the Color of Authority of the State of Oregon, there is another legal facet to be perfected. That facet is the Racketeer-Influenced Corrupt Organization designation which will apply to the organizers, from the Chief Petitioner on down to the signature-collectors. Under any declaration that a criminal conspiracy exists (a simple True Bill from a Federal Grand Jury or a USAG's Information) the RICO process may be initiated. That process will freeze ALL the assets of the named conspirators, the financial supporters and yes, perhaps even the signers of the Petition (the instrumentality of the criminal conspiracy). A VERY wide swath can be cut by the RICO process, and it might indeed ensnare all governmental officials who had provable Notice of the Petition, were in a position to stop the approval of the Petition but didn't, and maybe even the Judge who approved the ballot title. BTW, for the uninformed, once a judgment of RICO has been rendered, the defendants may be assessed as much as treble damages, in addition to Court Costs, Attorney Fees and all such expense.

4. The final Sword of Damocles hanging over this entire legal proceeding would be Class Action. I believe that there are over two million gun owners in Oregon, and each would be entitled to join in a Class as Plaintiffs, seeking common damages. I should think that those damages would be at least $10K/Plaintiff, which would put the erstwhile gun-grabbers on the legal hook for $20 Billion dollars. Considering the VERY deep pockets of the likes of Soros, Steyer, Bloomberg and other Limousine Liberals who can be expected to empower this conspiracy via their wealth, they probably DO HAVE $20B amongst them.

Your essayist begs for many, many Shares, so someone at the top of this anti-Civil Rights cabal will get my notice. Pass this word, please!

February 23, 2018

1. Democrats lie a lot, but they are FAR better organizers than GOPes will ever be.

2. GOPes ARE just as devious as Democrats. To GOPes, "protecting the Constitution” NEVER has the vital two words, "as written" involved.

3. If your aim is more Government (all D efforts lead in that direction, plus about 50% of GOP efforts), a populace with the determination and MEANS (guns) to END government is your greatest worry, not what the Other Party says or does.

4. If you could take all 500+ congresscritters to a large room with tables, sit them down with blank paper and pens, and ask them to offer what THEIR changes to the Constitution might be, how many would turn in a sheet with one word, “NONE!" on it? 5%? 10%? on Independence Day, maybe 25%?

5. If you asked all those Congresscritters to list all the Amendments as to their support of them, AS WRITTEN, with ORIGINAL MEANINGS, how many would include the 2A on that list? Damn few.

6. Do YOU know the meaning of the 2A, AS WRITTEN? Start with the Federalist Papers. Read Federalist #29.

Nope, the Congresscritters we elect can change our Constitution the sneaky way, by writing laws that change the original Founders' meaning of Articles and Sections and Amendments. No matter the party in power, we can NEVER trust Congress to NOT change the Constitution with little pushes, and when there are enough little pushes, an original meaning gets lost.

BTW, the REAL meaning and Intent of the 2A is to enable the Citizens to REMOVE their Government if it becomes Tyrannical, and giving them the R2KBA does that nicely. ANY politician of either stripe who tells you that the 2A is about the structure of Militia, or about owning hunting guns (?????), or even about personal protection from armed criminals is WRONG, it is about REMOVING THE GOVERNMENT. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMOVE OUR GOVERNMENT! Politicians don't like that, want to obfuscate that right if not remove it entirely. since our 2A has the purpose of enabling that Right, ALL politicians who value their jobs more than their Constitution (at least 80% of them) want to alter/remove the 2A.

If the above words don't worry you, do NOT count yourself as a Patriot.